Sharjeel Imam Bail Plea Definitely Deserves Early Hearing
1. Background:
Sharjeel Imam, a student activist, was arrested in connection with alleged inflammatory speeches during protests in India. He has filed a bail plea in the courts, seeking release while the investigation and trial proceed. The issue of early hearing of his bail plea has been debated in terms of constitutional protections and the principles of personal liberty.
2. Constitutional Perspective:
a. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
Article 21 guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Bail is an essential safeguard of personal liberty. Delayed hearing of bail can be seen as indirect violation of Article 21 because detention beyond necessity without judicial scrutiny infringes personal freedom.
b. Presumption of Innocence:
Under criminal jurisprudence, a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without urgent reasons undermines this presumption.
3. Legal Principles on Bail:
a. Fundamental Principles:
Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.
The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 532 emphasized that speedy trial and timely bail are essential to protect liberty. The Court stated:
“Justice delayed is justice denied. A person awaiting trial has the right to be released on bail unless there are exceptional circumstances.”
b. Early Hearing of Bail Pleas:
Courts have repeatedly held that urgent consideration of bail petitions is necessary if the accused is in prolonged detention.
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Court held that bail should not be denied lightly and that unreasonable delay in hearing bail can amount to infringement of liberty.
c. Nature of the Offense:
Even in cases involving alleged public disorder, the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 750 held that bail must be considered unless the accused is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or commit serious crimes.
Mere allegations of speeches or protests, without concrete evidence of imminent threat, cannot justify prolonged detention.
4. Case Law Supporting Early Bail Consideration:
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979):
Emphasized speedy trials and prompt bail for those under detention.
Delay in hearing bail is a violation of fundamental rights.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980):
Held that bail is the norm, preventive detention is an exception, and courts must promptly consider bail pleas.
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977):
Bail cannot be denied merely because of the nature of allegations; considerations must be evidence-based.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40:
Even in economic offenses, the Court observed that long pre-trial detention without hearing of bail can cause irreparable harm and violates Article 21.
5. Examination-Oriented Analysis:
a. Arguments for Early Hearing:
Sharjeel Imam is in custody; prolonged detention violates Article 21.
There is no evidence suggesting he will abscond or tamper with evidence.
Judicial precedent supports prompt hearing to ensure liberty.
The principle of presumption of innocence demands that bail should be considered without unnecessary delay.
b. Counter-Arguments:
State may argue potential risk to public order.
Courts, however, have consistently noted that preventive detention must be exceptional, not routine.
c. Balancing Test:
Courts weigh liberty of the accused vs. public interest.
In this case, principles from Sibbia and Balchand favor early consideration.
6. Conclusion:
Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea deserves early hearing based on constitutional protection under Article 21 and established case law.
Delay would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s insistence on speedy justice and protection of personal liberty.
Courts are duty-bound to consider his bail promptly, unless there is strong evidence of flight risk or public danger.
RELATED Blog
0 comments